Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16856070›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006

Intramedullary nails for extracapsular hip fractures in adults.

M J Parker, H H G Handoll

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Intramedullary nails for extracapsular hip fractures in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Influence of fragment volume on stability of 3-part intertrochanteric fracture of the femur: a biomechanical study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2013
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M J ParkerPeterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Orthopaedic Department, Peterborough District Hospital, Thorpe Road, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire, UK PE3 6DA. martyn.parker@pbh-tr.nhs.uk
H H G Handoll
Peterborough City Hospital · GBTeesside University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntramedullary nails may be used for the surgical fixation of extracapsular hip fractures in adults. They may be inserted from the top (cephalocondylic) or from the bottom (condylocephalic) end of the femur.

objectivesTo compare different types or design modifications of intramedullary nails used in the fixation of extracapsular hip fractures. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (March 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2006), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the UK National Research Register, several orthopaedic journals, conference proceedings and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing different types of intramedullary nails or modifications to the design of intramedullary nails in the treatment of extracapsular hip fractures in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Additional information was sought from all trialists. MAIN

resultsSix studies, involving a total of 1071 predominantly female and older people with mainly unstable trochanteric fractures, were included. Allocation concealment was likely in one trial, not described in three and not done in the other two trials. Four studies, with 910 participants, compared the proximal femoral nail with the Gamma nail. Though there was increased risk of comminution (fragmentation) at the fracture site when inserting a Gamma nail, there was no statistically significant difference in operative fracture of the femur (1/455 versus 5/455; relative risk 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 1.63). No notable differences were seen between implants for fracture healing complications, reoperations and other post-operative complications. Pooled data showed no significant difference between implants for mortality (relative risk 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.41) or function assessment outcomes. One study, with 80 participants, found no differences between a gliding nail versus a standard Gamma nail. Another study, with 81 participants, found no difference between a dynamically versus a statically locked intramedullary hip screw. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThe limited evidence from the randomised trials undertaken to date is insufficient to determine whether there are important differences in outcome between different designs of intramedullary nails used in the internal fixation of extracapsular hip fractures. Given the evidence of superiority of the sliding hip screw compared with intramedullary nails for extracapsular hip fractures, further studies comparing different designs of intramedullary nails are not a priority. Any new design should be evaluated in a randomised comparison with the sliding hip screw.

Indexed as

Bone NailsAgedFemaleFracture Fixation, IntramedullaryHip FracturesHumansMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID16856070
OpenAlexW4244421380

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.